Strip Clubs and David Klinghoffer

I guess David is a true believer in the adage that if you repeat yourself often enough, people will believe something is fact. Here is an example. In his BeliefNet column he repeat something he wrote about 11 years ago. It is as wrong today as it was 11 years ago, but that doesn't stop David. Here, you tell me.

"Materialism . . . in a philosophical context it means a world view where only material reality counts, an outlook which denies that human existence has a spiritual component, and certainly denies the religious outlook in which existence is all spirit with material reality thrown in mainly to confuse us. Two famous examples of materialism in ideological form are Marxism and Darwinism, both of which maintain that ultimately life can be explained in terms of molecules bumping up against one another. "

The first thing he does is define Materialism. I don't have a problem with that definition. It's a re-statement, but one I think is pretty accurate, the definition of materialism in the philosophical sense of the word. However I disagree with Marxism and Darwinism [you already know of my issues with the term 'Darwinism'] are examples of materialism.

'Darwinism', or more accurately the Theory of Evolution, is part of the science of Biology. Biology, like all natural sciences use a philosophy of methodological naturalism. In other words it does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. Supernaturalism is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed.

Anyone else here see the difference that David can't seem to grasp? The whole concept of the Supernatural being deliberately left out because it cannot be tested, it is not objective, it is not predictable! This does not make Evolution an example of the philosophy of materialism. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that denies spirituality, nothing!

Here is where I think David makes his underlying mistake. Many people's belief system attributes specific action to a Deity. People once believed that God brought the rain, good harvests, the sun rose because of God's will, the Earth was flat, the sun revolved around the Earth, lightning was Zeus' weapon of choice or God playing Nine-Pins. What science has done is offer natural explanations for many of the phenomena that used to be attributed by God.

We have learned so much and we have use these natural science explanations to do so much. But David can't keep from putting God in a tiny box and his way of keeping God in that box is to attribute specific actions and deny a whole branch of science because it doesn't fit in David's box. He does this not by proving that the science is incorrect, but by making snippy comments, like defining Evolution as materialism and telling you how bad Materialism is . . . oh and gee since Evolution is materialism, it must be bad. He also does it by using the pejorative 'Darwinism', which while an accepted use of the word to describe Evolution from Darwin's point of view in ENGLAND, here in the US only people with an ax to grind against the Theory of Evolution use it. David isn't from England is he?

Oh and if you haven't clicked on the link to his article and missed the Strip Club reference, let's just say that David went to a club in LA and claims he went in because he didn't want to be a party-pooper (he was with a group) and while he was there he spent the entire time framing the visit in terms of why 'Darwinism' is a bad thing. Sure David, sure! And you never inhaled either?

He did this with his usual brand of less-than-subtle jabs with his other little diatribe to convince you that Evolution leads to racism. Funny has David never commented on the killing of Dr George Tiller? It would be easy to miss, after all David posts a lot but seems to say very little. He just keeps re-hashing on a tired theme.

Secular Priests?

The Discovery Institute must think we are all completely dead from the neck up. OK, everyone, how many of you think that scientists, including doctors, are nothing more than priests? Well that is what the DI claims in their post "Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions". Have we in fact traded one set of robes for another? Well if you listen to the Di, that's all we have done. They are in error . . . which should surprise no one.

This is one of their run-of-the-mill tactics to bring science down to their level, since they have failed miserable at bring religion up to the level of science.

Let's see the difference between going to a priest and going to a doctor for a medical condition.

• The priest prays, while the doctor examines you
• The priest prays while the doctor determines not only your condition., but the cause
• The priest prays while the doctor prescribes a course of treatment
• The priest prays while your condition be being treated.

The priest and the doctor are not equivalent. One has theology, a shared belief system. The other has so many more tools at their disposal. No, medical science is not perfect. people still get sick and die. But how many conditions are treatable! Life can be, and in many cases prolonged! Ask my diabetic Friends how well prayer works to regulate blood sugar levels? Ask my granddaughter whose heart beat reached over 248 because medication brought it back to normal. Ask people if glasses, contacts, even laser eye surgery allows them to see clearer. Ask about hearing aids, wheelchairs, pacemakers . . . how long is this list? Incredible isn't it.

No, we have not traded one set of robes for a lab coat. What we have done is traded superstition for facts. We have traded belief in the supernatural for the evidence of modern medicine.

Dave Mauriello made the same point is his post "Experts" and experts are not comparable. I can only agree wholehearted with him!

More from Jesus and Mo

This one is too good to pass up re-posting.
If you read online comics, you need to add Jesus and Mo to your list.

5 years later

Doing my usual wandering around the web, I frequently check out PZ Myers 'Pharyngula' blog and am rarely disappointed. Today was certainly no exception. He linked to an article published 5 years ago. An interview with several Intelligent Design proponents, including Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Paul Nelson. I had seen excerpts of some of the comments before, but I hadn't read the whole article.

PZ focused his comments on one question in his blog post "Put your affairs in order, biologists. Your time is nigh!" That question was "Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?" Of course Dembski predicted the demise of evolution. Nelson was actually a little better claiming the biggest challenge is "to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design." Well in the past 5 years we have yet to see any sign of crumbling in evolutionary theory, we also have yet to see any sign of an actual 'Theory of Biological Design." I was also struck by the fact Nelson didn't include the word 'Intelligent' in his response. I was also interested in the rest of the article and here are a few things that struck me.

Johnson immediate brought up the whole 'prejudice' line in his first comment. How A.E. Wilder-Smith and and Michael Denton were "brilliant men were noticed to some degree, but prejudice prevented their ever gaining a fair hearing." AE Wilder Smith was one of the people pushing the dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River. You know, the ones found to be doctored and carved. So it's 'prejudice' to expose a fake? Denton seems to have changed his mind. In 1998 he published his second book, Nature's Destiny, which appears to assume evolution as a given. He no longer openly associates with the Discovery Institute and they no longer lists him as a fellow. Funny, this interview was in 2004, yet Johnson makes no mention of Denton's 1998 work. But he does adhere to the party line, claiming prejudice and discrimination as the reasons why Intelligent Design can't seem to get off the dime. Interesting how it doesn't stop real scientists, but it does seem to be a major roadblock to the pseudo-scientists.

Johnson's next comment just killed me "Freud, Marx, and Darwin were all revered as major scientific heroes throughout the twentieth century. Of the three, only Darwin retains any scientific standing."

First of all, Sigmund Freud has no scientific standing? Since when? Granted some of his ideas have been superseded by recent work, but the Father of the psychoanalytic school of psychology still has a great deal of standing. Like Newton and Darwin, his work only went so far. People kept taking it expanding it in many areas and even replacing it in others.

Now Karl Marx, revered? At least that is the Marx I think Johnson was referring to. I doubt it was Groucho, Chico, Harpo, or Zeppo (or the lesser known Gummo -- yes, Gummo, look it up). First of all while I recall studying up on Marx a bit, I would never put him in the same class as Freud or Darwin. In his own lifetime his was a relative unknown. I think this is the first time I have seen those three names linked in such a fashion, but it also plays to the Discovery Institute party line of linking Darwin with Hitler, eugenics, and racism. Why not communism?

Another question was "What are the implications for morality of Darwinism and intelligent design?" To which Johnson replied: "The fundamental issue is whether God is real or imaginary. An imaginary God has no moral authority. Intelligent design is bitterly resisted because it threatens to allow God to re-enter the realm of reality as the object of public knowledge."

This is a mis-characterization, to say the least. The reason Intelligent Design is contested is simply the precise reason mentioned by Nelson. There is no theory supporting it. There is no work, no evidence, no explanations that can be taught as science! Until that happens it deserves to remain lumped in with Astrology and the other wanna-be sciences. The fact ID is so tightly woven with God and Creationism is mainly because of Johnson's own words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy):

• "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind."
• "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
• "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."
• "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."
  

So, in other words, Johnson is still trying to remove the specter of 'God' from Intelligent Design and he has failed. Without an 'Intelligent Designer' his ideas have no place to go. Here we are 5 years after this interview and Intelligent Design still has no theory, it has no support other than some degree of popular support. Even though the Discovery Institute opened its own lab, there is still no theory. For all it's marketing, which this interview is certainly a part of, there is still nothing to teach other than as a failed philosophy. There is nothing to present to science. My expectation is there never will be because rather than just buckle down and do the science, they are spending all their time marketing.

OK, enough from me. Go see the article for yourself and enjoy. There is so much more to read there. I have only scratched the surface. Here are a few phrases that caught my eye:

• [ID's] main importance is cultural
• People’s intuitions will continue to lead them to see the design in biology
• More than half of the work of the ID community is still directed to pointing out the problems with Darwinism
• biologists even now freely employ the concept of design, saving themselves from charges of heresy by arbitrarily attributing the design to natural selection. [huh?]
• [Dembski actually said this] Natural selection acting on randomly varying replicators is fruitful and certainly a factor in biology

There you go, please read it., laugh at the funny parts and think how much of this will change int he next 5 years.

I honestly believe ID proponents would rather cry "Prejudice" than "Eureka!"

Florida for Science Stick-Figure contest

The Florida for Science crowd had a hilarious Stick Figure contest, the objective was to boil down issues in the public misunderstanding of science into a stick figure cartoon. Here are the results:

Third place goes to Entry E submitted by Brooke Lundquist from Niceville, FL.

Second place goes to Entry G submitted by Benjamin Tichy from Calistoga, CA.

And first place goes to Entry C submitted by Richard Korzekwa from Los Alamos, NM.

I tried to enter myself, but I don't think even stick-figures are within my artistic abilities. OK, you caught me. It wasn't the figures, it was trying to fit the words in the tiny little balloons. You know me, why use one word when 10 will do!

I will plug one of the online strips that I read regularly, http://xkcd.com/, who have certainly taken stick figures to a new level. If you read xkcd, you have to remember to put the mouse over the strip itself to get the full effect of the strip.

Do you know anyone like this?

I am afraid I do. Lots of them visit Topix.

Ken Ham goes of the deep end . . . again

Over on WorldNetDaily, which is an fairly entertaining website to me, they had an interesting article "Why are Young People Leaving the Church?" Now this has been an ongoing question in just about all denominations for decades. The Catholic diocese I went to school at recently closed down due to not enough parishioners or children attending the school. I remember a horde of kids, literally hundreds when I attended. But no more.

So who is asking the question now? Why none other than Ken Ham, the purveyor of pseudo-science himself. If you know of little kennie then you know he runs AIG and the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. I've blogged about him before. (Turnabout is fair play, Supporting Evolution - and other Sciences, Ken Ham: I am not a Moron, and Science 1: Creation Museum 0) So here is a twist, Kennie commissioning a study to determine why young folks are leaving the church. Of course he has the answer: to quit teaching that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. According to kennie, the exodus from the Church started back in the 19th century when we stopped teaching that the Earth was only 6 to 10,000 years old.

Does he really believe this is the answer to people, especially young people, leaving the various churches in droves? Let's stop teaching the Earth is older than Bishop Ussher's 'calculation' which puts the Earth at 6 thousand years of age. We stop teaching that and people will what? Come back to Church? Is he for real?

Yes, I am afraid so. He thinks that if all religions turned into his narrow-view religion, the young people wouldn't have a reason to leave the Church. Yes, narrow! How many religions support the idea of a Young Earth? Damn few! Mainly Ken's version of Evangelical Christianity. The Catholics, Methodists, Baptists . . to name a few of the much more populated Christian religions, disagree with him.

So in essence, he wants everyone to believe what he believes. Now a show of hands, how many people are surprised by his 'answer'? Does anyone think he waited until he saw the results of his 'study' before determining his 'answer'? Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller . . well maybe Ben Stein will back him up, but the rest of us have learned better.

So why are people leaving the church? All the churches, not just kennie's excuse for one.

One of the reasons, in my opinion, are people like Kennie himself. Think about it. On the one hand you have thousands of scientists with thousands of pieces of evidence supporting an Old Earth (about 4.5 billion years). The evidence is pretty overwhelming. On the other side you have strident voices like Kennie telling you that all the scientists are wrong because God speaks through him. He offers no evidence and completely ignores the evidence that disagrees with his belief. Gee, there is a reason not to go to church, particularly Kennie's.

Many people feel the Church is out of touch with reality. Gee, can't get more out of touch than kennie. This is a man who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary (joke borrowed from Lewis Black, I promise I will return it someday, but it fits all too well to stop using. I know, I am getting oit all wrinkled. I promise I will iron it before returning.) This is a man who thinks Dinosaurs and man lived together in perfect harmony. And he spent $27 million dollars of other peoples' money to convince folks of this. This is not a man you want educating or setting education policy!

So how does he bring people back into the church? Rather than change, he wants to return the educational system back to the 19th century and earlier. He wants biology abandoned, he wants Astronomy to only look for God -- if it is a subject at all. He wants geology to only offer answers that fall into his 6-10 thousand year range. He wants to re-write physics so radiometric dating agrees with him. He wants to deny the existence of genetics and the support it gives Evolution. He wants to make Charles Darwin a cousin of Adolph Hitler. . . you get my drift! This is not a man to be trusted with anyones' education!

Does anyone in the world think this will bring people back to the Church? I believe one of the key reasons people leave any Church is the church no longer fills a particular need of theirs. Whatever the need is, when a church no longer fills it, they leave. Maybe to find a different belief system. But you do not address this by asking people to toss out their education. You don't ask people to go back to the 19th century. You do not ask people to voluntarily be lobotomized. That is what Kennie is asking. Suspend intelligence, suspend disbelief, suspend reality. Your world will be better off if you think the world is 6-10,000 years old. Your world will be better off if we stop using biology to develop food sources and medicines. Your world will be better off if you think a world-wide flood happened and that explains geology, fossils, oil, and even continental drift. You can become a carbon copy of little kennie, and all will be right in the world . . . well at least his world. SOunds like a Twilight Zone episode.

I do wonder what little kennie would say if we re-set the clock on education to say about 1848 and people didn't flock back to his Church. I guess he'll just come up with another excuse rather than face the reality that he is one of the ones driving people away. He is a key reason people turn away from religion. He and people like him who are convinced they know what is best for us, all we have to do is believe as they do . . . oh yea, and send them money, lots of money!

Arguments XXVIII - Is Evolution Humanism?

A few of the frequent posters over on Topix tend to pick up arguments from each other and repeat them, as if saying the same thing over and over again adds to it's validity. One of the constant themes is trying to call Evolution a religion, more specifically part of the Humanism religion.

Rather than get into the whole 'is Humanism a religion?' debate, I'll set my thinking here and you can argue with me if you wish. Humanism is a philosophy, certainly, but since it rejects all form of supernatural, is not dependent on faith, or 'holy' texts for guidance, I am not sure how anyone can call it a religion. Let me be clearer, Humanism is a philosophy, as are all religions. Yet all philosophies are not religions.

Well in any event, is Evolution part of the Humanist philosophy?

In a word, No! While the study of science focuses on the natural world, it shares a venue with Humanism, but that is pretty much as far as it goes. Science, by its nature is Descriptive, philosophies are Prescriptive. The difference might be subtle, but look at it this way. Science describes what is occurring, philosophies state how things should be. Get the difference?

Science involves an examination of the evidence and determining explanations for the evidence. It can deliver both good and bad news, because to science it is just news. It doesn't matter whether you believe in it, or even understand it, the explanations remain the same. If you wish to overturn an explanation, just do the leg work and develop an explanation that is better supported by the evidence.

A philosophy, be it humanistic or religious, is a life choice. You choose to accept and support a set of prescriptions, or in the case of many religions - proscriptions, in defining your life and your actions. The rules are laid out in front of you and the other members of your philosophical group judge how well you live up to those prescriptions.

Now where things get muddled is when someone starts examining the 'philosophy of science' and tries to draw Humanistic relationships. One thing you will learn in any basic philosophy course is that all philosophies share many common characteristics. The includes the philosophies that drive many academic subjects. And while the philosophy of science deals with the metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science. This philosophy supports the basic methodology that drives scientific investigation. It does not drive the science itself! The philosophy of science, or mathematics, or even law and history (yes, every academic subject has philosophies) drives the approach and helps determine how the subject is investigated, documented, supported. It doesn't pre-determine the results. In fact is it a violation of the philosophy of science to twist your results to fit a predetermined answer.

So there are parallels, but Science is not a religion. Whether you believe in a scientific theory or not doesn't affect its outcome. You car doesn't start because you BELIEVE it will start. It starts because all the conditions (oil, gasoline, air, spark) are present in the right concentration to work as science predicted and engineering created. There in lies the difference. Evolution happened and is happening today regardless of any belief system. You can reject the philosophy of science, but that doesn't mean you can successfully reject the science. It works regardless of your belief and acceptance. Step off a ledge while loudly proclaiming you reject the philosophy of Gravity and test the results for yourself. I would start off with a curb before jumping off that cliff.

Now let's take this back on track, something I am guilty of not doing often enough. Should science class include the teaching of alternate philosophies? No! I think the only philosophy that belongs in science class is the philosophy of science. Teach the students what that philosophy is, how it drives scientific achievement, how and why it works! Introducing an alternative philosophy, such as a religious or even humanistic one, would simply confuse the issue before students actually understand it. This is why teaching Intelligent Design as science is a bad idea. It does not follow the philosophy that defines scientific methodology. The work has not been done, yet supporters want to be treated as if it had. It does not belong there, especially not a HS science class while students are still learning the basics of science!

Stephen C. Meyer has a new book coming out

As I have said before that I don't trust much of anything that comes out of the Discovery Institute. Here is a case in point, an announcement of a book that hasn't hit the shelves yet. I plan on pointing out my current objections, then I will read the book and report back then. I know, people may think I am already prejudiced against the DI, and they are sort of right. Prejudiced involved pre-judging. My opinion of the DI is not a pre-judgment, but an opinion based on the tactics and strategies they have exhibited so far. I expect this book to be nothing more than the same and I expect the DI to meet my expectations. If you want to think I am prejudiced, then you explain to me how lying, mis-representing science, and pretending to be the victim of an imaging persecution are positive role models in today's society? If you can do that then maybe you might have a reason to think I am prejudiced.

OK, to the new book. The DI has done their usual trumpeting:

As we are ever quick to point out here at ENV, the case for Darwinian evolution has been crumbling in recent years as scientific research points to design in nature. Now a unique, new argument for intelligent design is about to revolutionize the debate over evolution.

On June 23, Dr. Stephen Meyer's long-awaited Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) will break open the radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information.

Let's just take a quick peek. Has anyone actually witness the crumbling case of evolution? With the DI's failures in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Oklahoma, California, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Pennsylvania . . . to name a few, I would think the DI is much closer to crumbling. But I guess if you keep saying the same thing ver and over again, someone might believe it to be true. What did PT Barnum supposedly say, "There's a sucker born every minute" and WC Fields said "It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep their money." Well either way they both seem to apply to the Discovery Institute.

Next point, "scientific research points to design in nature". Another question where is this research? Who has seen it, who has published it, who has peer reviewed it? Pretty bold claim for something that no one has seen evidence of all this scientific work? The same scientific work that Michael Behe said wasn't being done by anyone as late as 2005?

I do love the phrase " a unique, new argument" because it would be entertaining, if nothing else, for an actual unique new argument. So far things have been pretty much at a standstill. Oh, I mean a standstill over on the DI side. On the evolution-side nothing as stood still as the research and scientific work rolls on. Just look at PubMed and search for the articles about evolution for an idea.

Usually the term "long-awaited" means there have been people eagerly awaiting for it's publication. Who has been waiting for this? No one know. I know lots of people who have been waiting and been severely disappointed in the publications of Behe, Dembski, Wells, and even Meyer before. But rarely does 'eagerly' apply. It will be interesting to read some of the criticisms of Meyers latest, but I guess we have to wait for it to come out first.

Another question? If this book is going to "break open the radical and comprehensive new case" why is it being published by HarperOne, an imprint of Harper-Collins? I am not saying anything negative about the publisher, I mean they publish what they hope will sell. But Meyer is repeating a significant problem when using a popular press publisher. There is no requirement for proof of his work. Now if he had real scientific evidence he would be publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But no, he aims at the popular press with a requirement of proof and support of Zero! The smells typically fishy to me!

OK, this is the last comment I wish to make right now. The Amazon.com description of the book is

"The first, major scientific argument for Intelligent Design by a leading spokesperson within the scientific community."

Let's see, so all the other Major Scientific Arguments were what . . .prattle? SO this line says we can dismiss all the books by Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Klinghoffer, and even Meyer's himself because this is the FIRST! In a word bull! It's just the latest! I also have a problem with Meyer being described as "a leading spokesperson within the scientific community". He is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. He is by no means a representative of the scientific community, let alone a leading spokesperson of that community.

OK, enough said for now. I do look forward to reading this book and seeing how well it lives up to the hype. Yes, I am skeptical, but that skepticism is based on the history of the DI and Stephen C. Meyer, who has done nothing but disappoint and disillusion so far.

Since when are scientists forced to make a choice?

From a recent Discovery Institute 'press' release.

"There was a time when most scientists were also deeply religious men. When scientists were not forced to choose between belief in God and the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. But that all ended with Charles Darwin.

In his stunning new book, The Darwin Myth, CSC fellow Benjamin Wiker cuts through the politically correct lies and cultural misconceptions to reveal the true Charles Darwin: the man who separated God from science."

Since when are scientists forced to choose between belief in God and rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge? The real answer is that they are not! Most scientists I know are also deeply religious people. They attend church and are part of their community, like most folks! They hold different religious beliefs and some do not hold to any particular religion at all. You know pretty much like any other group of people.

This 'requirement to choose' is nothing but an artificial dichotomy created for the express purpose of dividing people along lines chosen by the Discovery Institute. The problem is scientists are not the ones falling for this line, but ordinary folks who think you have to make a choice. The reality is you do not!

Jonnie Wells, another one of the less-than-stalwart-fellows over at the DI made it pretty clear, according to the DI you do have to make a choice. Faith and Evolution? And of course THEIR idea of the right choice is to choose God and by the way they have this neat little idea called Intelligent Design that has God's Stamp of Approval! Gee, he is sounding more like an infomercial today, isn't he?

Here is how I see it. The Theory of Evolution in not incompatible with belief in God. Science doesn't address the metaphysical aspects of any form of spiritual belief. What I find most striking is that after years of the DI trying to divest itself of those vestments is still claiming this dichotomy is true. How can an idea like Intelligent Design, one whose supporters claim is 'non-religious', mandate such a divide? The only way it can is if it is inherently a religious proposition!

To be sure, evolution is incompatible with a literal form of Christianity usually called Evangelical. Yes, Science does refute the specific claims made by those who insist that the Bible is absolutely historically and scientifically accurate. Like hte age of the Earth, Noah's world-wide flood, and the like. But since when does conflicting with one very narrow interpretation of a religion mean there is an issue with believing in God? In my opinion many religions only have a passing acquaintance with God anyway, but that is neither here nor there in this post.

As for The Darwin Myth, I would be more than a little hesitant to trust anything written, published, or even publicized by the Discovery Institute. They are the ones pushing this artificial dichotomy and lo and behold they have books supporting it. In my opinion the only thing that might be stunning about Wiker's book is if it didn't support the party line set for by the Discovery Institute. But then look at the publisher as well, Regnery Publishing, one of the, if not the, leading Conservative publishing company. I guess the Discovery Institute Press was outr of paper that day.

One last word on the Darwin myth. I really don't care that much about Charles Darwin. I mean yes, he was a great man who put things together and came up with a evolutionary idea that has become the bedrock of biological sciences today. But in reality, the theory of evolution has progressed well beyond him. The focus on Darwin will not change what he did nor change what has been going on now for the past 150 years.

What this really is, to me, is nothing more than another tactic of the Discovery Institute. They try and refute the man with 'Charles Darwin: the man who separated God from science' and at the same time create phony connections between Evolution and the Nazi's. I think they need to go back to their labs and start actually doing some science. All this rhetoric is getting a bit long in the tooth for them to think it actually makes a difference. I mean how many States has the DI's 'strengths and weaknesses' campaign been swallowed? One, Louisiana! How long did their victory last in Kansas, Ohio, and Dover PA? Exactly right up until the next election in each place. Wonder how Louisiana lawmakers will fare in the future?

The Discovery institute tries its hand at censorship, is anyone surprised?

As reported in a number of other places, those less-than-stalwart fellows over at the DI is illegally attempting to stile critics of themselves, their policies, and even their spokespeople on YouTube. Pharynugla, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and the Thoughts from Kansas blogs all wrote about it.

Now you all know what I think of the Discovery Institute, but I do have to ask, is anyone surprised? The DI will use any tactic to silence or intimidate their critics. They respond and put their spin on anything critical to them and even when they lose on an issue, they try and make it sound like a victory. So is anyone surprised they will try and remove videos critical of them on YouTube? I certainly hope not.

As I was reading about the issue on Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" one comment caught my eye. Sadie Morrison wrote

"Oh, come on, guys. They're just trying to "teach both sides." Everyone knows the only way to do that is by attempting to silence the other side completely."

I thought Ms. Morrison summed it up pretty well. Look at the tactics they have used. How much more time have they spent trying to denigrate or at least marginalize the teaching of Evolution. They spend more on that than they do promoting their own pet concept Intelligent Design. They are attempting to make a connecting between Darwin and the Nazi's not because they believe it to be true, it's to make people think that Evolution is evil. They push for representation on the Texas board reviewing the science curriculum not because they give a damn about childrens' education, but because they are trying to control what gets presented to those students. And they are trying to silence criticism, even though they are not the owners of the videos in question! Gee is anyong with two or more working braincells surprised?

That is all they care about, not free speech, not education, not academic freedom, but they want to be the arbitrator of all things scientific in order to achieve their ends of a 'more theistic' viewpoint. I am proud to say that they will fail! Such censorship has been attempted many times in the past and even if it wins a small victory (Dayton TN in 1925, Kansas and Ohio in 2002, Louisiana in 2008) calmer and much more intelligent heads will prevail. Already the ACLU is calling for Louisiana to better clarify the rules for implementing their new law about the introduction of supplementary materials to exclude Creation, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design because they would fail the law's section on religion. Kansas and Ohio actually tossed out the more rapid Creationists on their school boards. Plus the well documented victory in Dover!

The foes of actual Free Speech and Academic Freedom, currently epitomized by the Discovery Institute, will continue to be targets and will continue to be exposed to the light of day.

One small note ... Where is FoxNews? Has anyone seen anything about FoxNews complaining that the DI is usurping their ownership rights of the videos? Interesting, they are usually pretty vocal about protecting their rights. Shouldn't they be up in arms? Or do they agree with the DI? More food for thought on a news channel that still features Ben Stein talking about the economy. Haven't they learned?

Klinghoffer making excuses

In response to some of the comments made about his foolish propaganda, Klinghoffer offers this 'explanation':

"Ladies & Gentlemen, I didn't link this guy with evolutionary thinking. He did that himself. I only quoted him. Should the media than scrupulously avoid noting what the suspect himself said about his motivations in hating Jews and others? Also, while many scientists see Darwinian theory as merely descriptive, not prescriptive, some have indeed seen it as both and so clearly does the suspect in this case. This is real life not a seminar in the philosophy of science." (David Klinghoffer, June 11, 2009 11:19 AM, reply to a comment posted under "James von Brunn, Evolutionist")

No Klinghoffer, you did more than just quote him. You are the one claiming that he is an Evolutionist. You are the one who want people who read your foolish post that von Brunn is some sort of evil genius with a firm grasp of science and evolution. You are the one who want to make people think scientists are Nazi's in sheep's clothing. You are the one making these connections. Where the rest of us see a sick human being, a racist, a violent, murderer and terrorist, you use his meandering words to justify your own agenda.

So according to Klinghoffer a racist supremacist with no understanding of evolutionary theory and who randomly and without comprehension uses a few words and concepts lifted from biology makes him an Evolutionist? No Klinghoffer, you did MUCH more than quote him, you put your own spin and label on his words. von Brunn didn't link himself to evolutionary thinking, it took your lack of intellectual honesty to try and make that connection.

David Kinghoffer is . . . . right this second there are no words!

Ladies and Gentlemen who peruse these pages. I try and maintain a civil discourse. I do not moderate comments, although I do like to comment back. I will freely admit that I have shown less than a high degree of respect for some people, Casey Luskin and Kennie Ham come to immediate mind, although I am sure there are others.

However David Klinghoffer, senior fellow of at the Discovery institute has sunk to a level that practically leaves me speechless. There are no words to describe him!

OK, let me cool off for a sec and lay a little ground work. I completely disagree with the Ben Stein, and others, who claim that Darwin is responsible for the Nazi Eugenic program. I pretty much have made that clear. In my opinion the Nazi's would have found any excuse to do what they did. Claiming some sort of racial superiority is not support by evolutionary sciences! Darwin never claimed it did and no scientist since has supported that position. There is no 'hierarchy' of some things being more evolved than others. Evolution is a process not a ladder.

It's when humans make such a judgment that the issue tends to get confusing. Folks like Ham, Stein, and others like to use that confusion to make false and unsupported statements about Darwin and his work.

OK, I am a tiny bit calmer. Enter Klinghoffer. According to him, the assault at the Holocaust Museum just yesterday was done by an Evolutionist. I caught this from John Lynch's new Blog 'A Simple Prop'. "Klinghoffer: Terrorist was an evolutionist". I really couldn't believe my eyes. I had little respect for Klinghoffer but now I have absolutely none! I really hope other groups, particularly groups impacted by the Holocaust respond to this level of insanity. Klinghoffer wrote his POS over on BeliefNet: "James von Brunn, Evolutionist". He claims that von Brunn, a racist and home-grown terrorist is an Evolutionist!

No Klinghoffer, he is a Racist! He is a Terrorist! He is a Murderer! Calling him an Evolutionist is nothing but you bending over and kissing the feet of your Masters over at the Discovery Institute and using this as propaganda for your marketing scheme. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I have learned that shame doesn't enter into the politicking and marketing hype of the Discovery institute. I am sure you will find support from other people who think like you do. I wouldn't be surprised at all. The problem is are you actually 'thinking'? I don't believe so. Blaming the Theory of Evolution for this tragedy is a perfect example of your lazy intellectual ideas. Rather than understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says and what it does not say, you feel free to use it in such a way that is, at it's core a lie! I beloieve that you know it's a lie, but you propogate it anyway.

Always keep learning

Caught this little gem over on Pharyngula, which as you might know is one of my favorite blogs. "Reaching creationists: here's the toolbox . . ." PZ Myers posted a great graphic:

The left side gives a much better example of evolutionary processes than the right. One of the reasons, at least to me, is that the right side seems to 'randomly' focused. What I mean is it leaves out the whole Natural Selection part of the process. It also implies that mutation is a response to a need.

While experimenting has shown that populations under pressure can increase their reproductive rate (Evolution can occur within 10 years) , that doesn't translate into a directed mutation. All it means is that there is increased opportunity for mutation. After all one of the positive aspects of sexual reproduction is an increased opportunity for mutation. So the right image, with it's implied 'mutation in response to need' is addressed much more clearly in the left graphic.

So the obvious question in the left side is what happens if no beneficial mutations(mutations that aid in the survival and reproductive opportunity) come about? Well quite obviously the size of the population will at best remain stable, but more than likely will shrink over time. if it reaches a point where the number cannot sustain itself, it will go extinct. SO you see while the right graphic doesn't addresses this, it's easy to extrapolate it from the left graphic.

All in all a nice and surprisingly simple graphic. Now the premise of the rest of his post I am not as sure about. Will this graphic really help in reaching out and helping Creationist understand Evolution? I think it's simply another attempt to respond to increasingly poor characterizations of the evolutionary process. I know I have been accused of disagreeing with Creationist's positions. In reality I don't really care about their position. They are free to believe what they wish to believe. But I do try and correct them when they mis-characterize science. It's one thing to say 'I don't believe in evolution.' It's completely something else to say 'I don't believe in evolution because evolution is yada yada yada.' when the yada yada yada has nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory.

For example you have no idea how often I have heard someone claim that evolution is false because it doesn't explain Abiogenesis, or it's statistically impossible, or tornadoes don't build 747s, or it doesn't follow the scientific method, or . . .. Well you get my point. I don't care what a Creationist wishes to believe, but when they mis-characterize science, either from ignorance or deliberate falsehood, they need to be corrected!

While this graphic might help with some of those who simply are ignorant, it won't help those that are ignorant by choice and ignore any evidence to the contrary. It also won't help much with those that are lying on purpose. Those folks are pretty much beyond hope. Then you have the appeasers who claim the graphic will only apply to micro-evolution and not macro-evolution, when anyone with a functional brain can see how it would apply to evolution, period.

In the end I do like the graphic and I hope you do as well. When it comes times to strap on the armor and battle yet another Creationists who thinks they have all the answers, this graphic will certainly be part of the weapons choice! Thanks PZ!

Non-Sequitur strikes again

I thought Non-Sequitur had moved off the 'Pre-Conceptual' science kick, but they slipped it in again . . .

(Image source)

And the focus shifts slightly east

Louisiana: "ACLU wants revision in LA science teaching rules". I see this as the start of things in Louisiana. Please remember that with Gov. Bobby Jindal's support the State of Louisiana passed a law which states, among other things:

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

However when the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education got around to publishing the rules about implementing this 2008 law, they sorta forgot the part about the 'shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine' part. The rules would allow a teacher to bring in pretty much anything in the way of supplemental material.

The ACLU would like the Board to re-visit those instructions and include specific prohibitions on the teaching of creationism and intelligent design.

I happen to agree with them! By leaving the door as wide open as the Board did, some school district will find themselves in the middle of a Dover-style lawsuit that they cannot afford! I believe they should state clearly and unequivocally that even though a teacher can use supplemental material that has not been specificall prohibited by the State or local officials, the use of non-secular material is prohibited! In my opinion that would include anything published by the Discovery institute :-). By the way, Casey Luskin is quoted in the article. In my opinion the State of Louisiana, where both of my children were born (Go LSU Tigers!), is being given bad advice!

As for my opinion on anything published by the Discovery Institute . . . while some of their publications doesn't appear religious, the organizations has, at it's core, a deliberate objective to replace current science and scientific methodology with a more 'Theistic" viewpoint. (Remember the Wedge Strategy) In my mind that taints anything they publish and anything they say, especially a mouthpiece like Casey Luskin. Their work and words do not have the education of any schoolchildren at heart, but the advancement of their own agenda.

Spotlight shines on the Texas Governor (again)

As discussed before Don McLeroy is out of the Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. A move applauded by many after the debacle he dragged the state through trying to impose his religious beliefs on the science curriculum. As we also mentioned the Great State of Texas needs to keep an eye out for McLeroy's replacement.

This editorial "Texas Governor is a dilemma over education board pick" pretty well lays out the problem. Governor Rick Perry has a limited pool of people to pick from, current board members. Because of the timing, the person will lead the Board for nearly two years before being confirmed in that position . . . ala McLeroy. While there are a number who would pretty much be a repeat of McLeroy's policies, the problem facing the Governor is pretty basic. To keep his supporters, the Christian right, he needs to appoint a McLeroy-clone. However Texas voters might not be sympathetic to such a move. I agree with the editorial's author in that he can't pick a Democrat, that would be link committing political suicide. That only leaves him with two other people, both Republicans, but not rabidly conservative. Of course he runs the risk of losing his supporters by appointing one of them.

So the dilemma seems to be three choices, pick a Democrat and lose everyone who previously supported him, pick a McLeroy-clone and lose the Texas voting public, or pick a less-conservative Republican and lose the support of the Christian right.

I am very glad people in Texas are keeping this issue in the spotlight! Tell the Governor who you would want to be the next Chairman to be. Check out http://www.emailyourgovernor.com/texas-governor-rick-perry.html for contact info to the Governor's office.

I love you, but . . . (Creationist style)

"I love you, but . . ." are four words that can strike fear into a loved one's heart! I think I have found the Creationist version.

"I am not going to let my creationist views influence me, but . . ."

That is a paraphrase from new Irving school board trustee Heather Ashley from a Dallas News article "Irving ISD trustee says despite personal beliefs, she won't push intelligent design". She says that she is a creationist and supports the teaching of intelligent design – though she knows she can't have any impact at the local level on the teaching of evolution.

"I am not going to, as a school board member, set curriculum that teaches only one point of view," she said. "I think we should have the possibility of teachers exposing students to different perspectives, which should include intelligent design."

Isn't she saying 'I am not going to let my beliefs influence me, but I think teachers should expose students to different perspectives' Huh? The only good thing about her statement is she didn't call Intelligent Design a 'theory', it's been reduced to a 'perspective'.

Am I reading to much into this? Maybe I am, but it's innocuous-sounding words like this that can start local problems, anyone remember Dover? OK, some of their statements weren't so innocuous, but that was later after they were on the Board that they went a bit haywire. I doubt anyone who stood up and said "Jesus Christ died for our sins, isn't it time someone stood up for him?" would have gotten elected. How many times did Don McLeroy say that he would not be using his Creationist beliefs as President of the Texas State School Board? And we saw how 'honest' he was about that. She also said that her goal is to serve the community. I sincerely hope that is true! I admire that she is straight forward in her beliefs, rather than some stealth Creationist that we have seen in other places. I also wish her the best serving that community!

I love you Irving TX, but I also hope you help Ms. Ashely hold to her goal of serving you and not her belief system.

Are we picking on the DI too much?

The Washington Post reached a new low and published a diatribe by John G. West, one of the Senior Fellows over at the Discovery Institute. Now before looking at the article, I have one tiny, little point to make. How many years has the Di claimed not to be a religious point of view? How many times have we heard that intelligent Design is not religion? How unfair we are being by drawing such a connection? Well guess which section was Johnnie's little missive in? Well he was the 'Guest Voice" in the "On Faith" column. yes, you heard it here first, On Faith!

yes, the DI's carefully crafted attempts to keep from being properly identified with religion seem to be a thing of the past.

OK, now on to the article. Why I asked if we might be picking on the DI too much is because of one of the things he had to say:

"Dawkins and Collins are often put forward as the two alternatives in discussions over faith and evolution, but since they both embrace Darwin's theory, they represent only a thin slice of the overall debate. Largely shut out from current media coverage are the growing number of scientists, as well as the vast majority of Americans, who view Darwin's theory with skepticism."

OK, so the Pope didn't invite them to the Vatican to discuss Religion and Evolution. OK, so the Templeton Foundation now considers them pariah. OK, so their 'Strengths and Weaknesses" has failed in every State except Jindal's playground of Louisiana. But have we really shut them out? I wish! Look. Johnnie is in the Washington Post. Behe has his own blog over on Amazon. Wild Bill still dabbles over on Uncommon Descent, which bills itself as 'Serving the Intelligent Design Community' which is fairly hilarious to me. In fact one of his contributors posted a fairly innocuous definition of Poe's Law:

Note: Poe’s law states that some people or situations just cannot be parodied because you couldn’t make up stuff that is further along the continuum. (here)

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. (here)

Of course the second definition isn't nearly as flattering toward Dembski and his friends as the first, since it specifically targets Fundamentalism.

OK, but back to Johnnie and his article. I have a question for him, who are all these scientists he, and others, keeps talking about? When pressed the Di simply waved their little petition and the 700 signatures of scientists that it took them over 9 years to collect. Wow, just looked at the list and they haven't published an update in nearly a year. But then we also know a few things about the list and how most are not biologists, many are not PhD's, some aren't even scientists, and how the clear majority dissent for evangelical reasons and how the Di misrepresented the list here in Ohio and even on their own website. So who are all these scientists that dissent from Darwin? No one seems to know.

He also repeats the standard DI mantra on how life

"developed through a blind and undirected process of natural selection acting on random variations. "

How many times does someone have to tell they that Natural Selection is not an unguided process. He only seems to believe that guidance must and can only be based on intelligence. Why can't a natural process provide guidance? Why can only intelligence produce a result that succeeds? Well it can and it does every day. No intelligence required. But he can't accept that as an answer.

Next he goes off the deep end and over sells himself and the DI.

"Experiments with bacteria, where evolution can be tested in real time, are showing just how little undirected processes like natural selection can actually accomplish."

I have to think he is talking about Lenski's experiments and I think a bacteria that can metabolize a new food source is a pretty big accomplishment, and it happened with no guidance in sight. Then he tries to tease us by making us this that there is some evidence supporting fine-tuning of protein sequences.

All in all, nothing new to offer. Vague comments, no support, just the usual DI fair. So are we being to hard on them? Nope, I think they deserve every set-back, even derisive comment, every laugh at how untenable they make their own position.

The Non Sequitur barrage continues, here is number 3

Does it get much better than this at lampooning pseudo-science and their proponents. I do love the "This is were you come in" line.

In case you missed the first two:

1. Monday Morning Funny, Non Sequitur
2. More humor from Non Sequitur

(Image Source)

What has science done for me?

A poster on Topix, posted this little gem "Benefits Of The Evolutionary Sciences "

I await with eager expectation the forthcoming public announcement that the Institute for Creation Research supports the placement of the following warning label on all medication approved by the FDA:

"WARNING: This product has been conceived, designed, and tested using the theory of evolution as its scientific model. Use of this product constitutes acceptance of the validity of the theory of evolution before both God and man. Anyone using this product does so at their own spiritual risk."

Now while I laughed about it, it also made me think. What in our modern grocery stores, at least the food items, would not have this label on it? Even in the 'organic' aisle the items there are the result of selective breeding for disease and drought resistance. The fresh fruits, grains, and meats have all be touched . . and many times more than touched . . . by evolutionary sciences.

Now lets expand beyond the grocery store and look at how science has impacted each and every aspect of our life. The way we travel, communicate, interact, work . . . there is nothing untouched by science and scientific methodology. And this is what people like the Discovery Institute want to throw away without having anything actually useful or workable in it's place? Pretty unrealistic to me, and pretty damn dangerous!

So let's get a little personal. What has science done for me? The food I eat . . . certainly. The work I do . . . absolutely. The car, phone, computer are also obvious examples. Science saved the life of one of my daughters shortly after she was born and helps my other daughter deal with an ongoing condition. It saved the life of my granddaughter just a couple of years ago.

Some people may very well want to attribute all this to God. OK, fine! But I will ask you to remember an oft quoted piece of advice, "God helps those who help themselves." Science is the ultimate self-help system! I for one appreciate that.

More humor from Non Sequitur

Looks like the 'Pre-Conceptual Scientist' is a running gag. I love it! If you haven't seen the first one, I have a link here.


(Image location)

Yea for Texas!

Two anti-evolution bills in Texas have died in committee! "Antievolution bills die in Texas!" reported by the NCSE.

Actually I was more worried about the first one than the second. The second was a typical Strengths and Weaknesses bill, nothing new there. After all the publicity over Don McElroy, I was hoping it would die a quick death in committee.

The first bill, as I wrote about here (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/03/texas-on-different-but-related-subject.html ) would have given groups, such as the institute for Creation Research (ICR) the right to award Master's of Science Degrees without any oversight at all. The Texas School Board and Texas Education Agency would have no control. Can we say 'diploma mill'? All this was a result of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) refusing the ICR permission to award such degrees. Suddenly they would have lost the authority to do so.

Now this fight isn't over! Texas should have two issues on their radar screen. The first is that the ICR is suing the THECB as well.(http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/04/hasnt-texas-had-enough.html )
All because they unanimously ... let me repeat that ... unanimously ... denied the ICR's request for a state certificate of authority to offer the MS in Science degree.

The second is who the Governor is going to pick to replace McElroy! If it is Cynthia Dunbar, as previously hinted at, the State could just be looking at a new face with the same McElroyish actions.

Faith and Evolution website funnies

I was reading a pdf file from the Discovery Institute's new "Faith and Reason# website, the one they set up to combat Francis Collin's BioLogos website. Well the pdf is titled "The Roots of Intelligent Design" and I was contrasting it with Barbara Forrest's paper "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" ad I realized the paper is one big smokescreen.

Basically the paper is an effort to claim that Intelligent Design does not have it's roots in Creationism. It tries to show how the design argument has been around for centuries and quotes Plato and a few others. Actually it makes an interesting read -- but it doesn't address the root issue. It's not the Design argument, which many have voiced over the years . . . but the current modern Discovery Institute-led Intelligent Design Movement that is nothing more than the Design argument wrapped in Creationism underpinnings!

When looked at in that light the "Roots" paper is nothing but more grist for the rumor mill that is the Discovery Institute. Rather than addressing the 'cdesign proponentists' discovered during the Dover Trial, rather than address the obvious Creationist statements of the Wedge Strategy. Rather than address Dembski, Behe, and others, who claim the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God. In fact rather than address the actual reason why the Faith and Evolution website was stood up . . . they take us down a well disguised path full of historical discussions about the argument of Design and try and leave us thinking that the 'argument' and the 'movement' are the same thing, when they are not!

At the end of the 'Roots' pdf are several discussion questions under the heading of 'Conclusions'. I do have a philosophical objections to asking a series of questions rather than drawing an actual conclusions. But I will try and answer them for myself.

24. What are the most important things you have learned from these readings?
25. What do these readings show you about the origins of intelligent design as an idea? Is intelligent design a response to modern court rulings or an outgrowth of “Christian fundamentalism”? Is it dependent on the authority of the Bible rather than the observations of nature and the inferences drawn from those inferences? How long have people been debating about whether there is evidence of design in nature?
These discussion questions are © 2009 by Discovery Institute; they may be freely downloaded, printed, and used for noncommercial purposes.

What are the most important things you have learned from these readings? Not much, I was already familiar with much of the design argument's history.

What do these readings show you about the origins of intelligent design as an idea? Not much other than a blurring between the movement and the argument.

Is intelligent design a response to modern court rulings or an outgrowth of “Christian fundamentalism”? Yes, the modern Intelligent Design movement is an evolution of the design argument based on Court decisions and most certainly related to Christian Fundamentalism. This paper did not address this issue, hence my 'smokescreen' comment.

Is it dependent on the authority of the Bible rather than the observations of nature and the inferences drawn from those inferences? The design argument is not dependent on the Bible, mainly because the Bible doesn't address the design argument itself. However Christian Apologetics have been using the Bible in support of the Intelligent Design Movement for years and therefore should be considered a source document for the movement.

How long have people been debating about whether there is evidence of design in nature? For a long time, but this question still doesn't address the relative youth of the modern ID movement. Plus the author of this paper needs to take a good psychology course on Teleology and the well documented human bias toward seeing design in nature.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the pdf was a short decent read on the roots of the Design Argument, but it never addresses the issue of the fundamental Christian ties and support for the Intelligent Design Movement, which I feel is disingenuous of the Discovery Institute.

Monday Morning Funny, Non-Sequitur

You know, sometimes this just hits the nail right on the head! (image source)